Yogurt is a nutrient-dense food within the milk and dairy products food group. The nutritional content of yogurt varies depending on the processing method and ingredients used. Like milk, it is a good source of protein and calcium, and can be a source of iodine, potassium, phosphorus and the B vitamins – riboflavin (B2) and vitamin B12 (depending on type). Some yogurt products are also fortified with vitamin D. The nutritional value of dairy products (milk, cheese and yogurt) and the importance of the nutrients they provide for bone health are well recognised. These foods are collected together as one of the four main food groups within the UK's eatwell plate model that illustrates a healthy, balanced diet. Studies exploring the nutritional and health attributes of yogurt are limited but some research has suggested benefits in relation to bone mineral content, weight management, type 2 diabetes and metabolic profile. Yogurt consumption has also been associated with diet quality. The aim of this paper is to use national survey data to examine yogurt consumption in the UK and consider its contribution to nutrient intakes at different life stages within the context of nutritional challenges in each age group.

The contribution of yogurt to energy and nutrient intakes across the life course was calculated via secondary analysis of data from the Diet and Nutrition Survey of Infants and Young Children (2011) and the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008/2009–2010/2011). The products categorised within the ‘yogurt group’ included all yogurt, fromage frais and dairy desserts, and fortified products. Comparisons were also made between specific sub-categories of yogurt, namely ‘yogurt’, ‘fromage frais’ and ‘dairy desserts’. Nutrients included in the analyses were energy; the macronutrients; micronutrients that yogurt can be defined as a ‘source of’; micronutrients that may be of concern in the UK population; and vitamin D for fortified products. A simple dietary modelling exercise was also undertaken to investigate the potential impact of including an additional pot of yogurt per day on the nutrient intakes of adolescents.

Children aged 3 years and under had the highest intakes of yogurt [mean intake 43.8 g/day (SD 39.7 g) in 4–18 month-olds; 46.7 g/day (SD 39.1 g) in 1.5–3 year-olds], and adolescents (11–18 years) consumed the least [21 g/day (SD 38.0 g)]. In adults, highest mean consumption [35.7 g/day (SD 55.0 g)] was during middle age (50–64 years), equivalent to less than a third of a standard 125 g pot. Around 80% of young children (aged 3 years and under) but only a third of teenagers and young adults had consumed any yogurt product during the survey period of 4 days. Average yogurt consumption was twice as high in women as men among older adults (65 years and over), while gender differences in consumption were less apparent in children. Fromage frais and fortified yogurt products were most commonly consumed by younger children, as were dairy desserts in those aged 4–18 years. Among adults, yogurt per se was most commonly consumed. Children aged 4–10 years exhibited the most variety in the types of yogurt consumed. Low-fat yogurt (including those with added fruit, nuts and cereals) was the most commonly consumed yogurt type when all ages were combined. More than a third of all yogurt products consumed by children aged 3 years and under were fortified, compared with 18% in those aged 4–10 years. During adulthood, the consumption of fortified products was negligible.

The yogurt group made a useful contribution to micronutrient intakes in children aged 4 months to 10 years, particularly vitamin B12 (4–18 months: 7.6%; 1.5–3 years: 5.3%; 4–10 years: 3.8%), riboflavin (7.8%, 6.9%, and 5.7%, respectively), calcium (9.5%, 8.2%, and 5.9%, respectively), iodine (7.2%, 7.6%, and 7%, respectively) and phosphorus (8.1%, 6.3%, and 4.3%, respectively). It also provided 3.9% of the total intake of vitamin D in those aged 4–18 months and 10.5% in those aged 1.5–3 years. Although the contribution to total dietary energy intake was low (4.9% at 4–18 months and 4.2% at 1.5–3 years), yogurt contributed a high proportion of non-milk extrinsic sugars (NMES) to the diets of young children (22.7% and 11.1% in 4–18 months and 1.5–3 years, respectively). However, the total NMES intake was comparatively low in children aged 4–18 months (6.7% total energy), and 11.6% in 1.5–3 year-olds (compared to 15.3% total energy in children aged 11–18 years in this survey). As children aged, the contribution of yogurt (all categories combined) to micronutrient intake, as well as to NMES, decreased, reflecting the increasing amounts and variety of foods in the diet.

Yogurt made a small contribution to energy and macronutrient intakes during adulthood, with the greatest proportions mostly in the older age group (65 years and over) (energy: 1.7%; fat: 1.3%; saturated fatty acids: 2.1%; NMES: 4%). As intake was higher among women, yogurt made a greater contribution to their micronutrient intakes compared with men, providing >5% of the reference nutrient intakes (RNIs) for phosphorus, iodine, calcium, vitamin B12 and riboflavin.

Simple dietary modelling was carried out to investigate the hypothetical change in mean nutrient intakes among adolescents aged 11–14 and 15–18 years, if they were all to add an extra 125 g pot of low-fat fruit yogurt to their current diet. This showed an increase in average intake, as a percentage of the RNI, for several micronutrients for which there is some evidence of low intakes in this age group, notably calcium in boys and girls (11–18 years) and iodine in girls (11–18 years). Although some benefits for micronutrient intakes were noted, such advice would impact on energy and macronutrient intakes (including NMES), and would need to be given in the context of the wider diet (e.g. as ‘swaps’ for less nutrient-dense foods).

In conclusion, yogurt makes a small but valuable contribution to nutrient intakes in the UK, particularly in young children. Among adolescents, the addition of a low-fat yogurt would help meet recommended intakes for several micronutrients, particularly calcium and iodine, which are of concern in some teenage diets. Advice to replace some types of snacks and desserts, particularly those high in fat and sugars and low in micronutrients, with a pot of yogurt or similar dairy product may improve the nutrient density of their diet.

]]>
Yogurt is a nutrient-dense food within the milk and dairy products food group. The nutritional content of yogurt varies depending on the processing method and ingredients used. Like milk, it is a good source of protein and calcium, and can be a source of iodine, potassium, phosphorus and the B vitamins – riboflavin (B2) and vitamin B12 (depending on type). Some yogurt products are also fortified with vitamin D. The nutritional value of dairy products (milk, cheese and yogurt) and the importance of the nutrients they provide for bone health are well recognised. These foods are collected together as one of the four main food groups within the UK's eatwell plate model that illustrates a healthy, balanced diet. Studies exploring the nutritional and health attributes of yogurt are limited but some research has suggested benefits in relation to bone mineral content, weight management, type 2 diabetes and metabolic profile. Yogurt consumption has also been associated with diet quality. The aim of this paper is to use national survey data to examine yogurt consumption in the UK and consider its contribution to nutrient intakes at different life stages within the context of nutritional challenges in each age group.
The contribution of yogurt to energy and nutrient intakes across the life course was calculated via secondary analysis of data from the Diet and Nutrition Survey of Infants and Young Children (2011) and the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008/2009–2010/2011). The products categorised within the ‘yogurt group’ included all yogurt, fromage frais and dairy desserts, and fortified products. Comparisons were also made between specific sub-categories of yogurt, namely ‘yogurt’, ‘fromage frais’ and ‘dairy desserts’. Nutrients included in the analyses were energy; the macronutrients; micronutrients that yogurt can be defined as a ‘source of’; micronutrients that may be of concern in the UK population; and vitamin D for fortified products. A simple dietary modelling exercise was also undertaken to investigate the potential impact of including an additional pot of yogurt per day on the nutrient intakes of adolescents.
Children aged 3 years and under had the highest intakes of yogurt [mean intake 43.8 g/day (SD 39.7 g) in 4–18 month-olds; 46.7 g/day (SD 39.1 g) in 1.5–3 year-olds], and adolescents (11–18 years) consumed the least [21 g/day (SD 38.0 g)]. In adults, highest mean consumption [35.7 g/day (SD 55.0 g)] was during middle age (50–64 years), equivalent to less than a third of a standard 125 g pot. Around 80% of young children (aged 3 years and under) but only a third of teenagers and young adults had consumed any yogurt product during the survey period of 4 days. Average yogurt consumption was twice as high in women as men among older adults (65 years and over), while gender differences in consumption were less apparent in children. Fromage frais and fortified yogurt products were most commonly consumed by younger children, as were dairy desserts in those aged 4–18 years. Among adults, yogurt per se was most commonly consumed. Children aged 4–10 years exhibited the most variety in the types of yogurt consumed. Low-fat yogurt (including those with added fruit, nuts and cereals) was the most commonly consumed yogurt type when all ages were combined. More than a third of all yogurt products consumed by children aged 3 years and under were fortified, compared with 18% in those aged 4–10 years. During adulthood, the consumption of fortified products was negligible.
The yogurt group made a useful contribution to micronutrient intakes in children aged 4 months to 10 years, particularly vitamin B12 (4–18 months: 7.6%; 1.5–3 years: 5.3%; 4–10 years: 3.8%), riboflavin (7.8%, 6.9%, and 5.7%, respectively), calcium (9.5%, 8.2%, and 5.9%, respectively), iodine (7.2%, 7.6%, and 7%, respectively) and phosphorus (8.1%, 6.3%, and 4.3%, respectively). It also provided 3.9% of the total intake of vitamin D in those aged 4–18 months and 10.5% in those aged 1.5–3 years. Although the contribution to total dietary energy intake was low (4.9% at 4–18 months and 4.2% at 1.5–3 years), yogurt contributed a high proportion of non-milk extrinsic sugars (NMES) to the diets of young children (22.7% and 11.1% in 4–18 months and 1.5–3 years, respectively). However, the total NMES intake was comparatively low in children aged 4–18 months (6.7% total energy), and 11.6% in 1.5–3 year-olds (compared to 15.3% total energy in children aged 11–18 years in this survey). As children aged, the contribution of yogurt (all categories combined) to micronutrient intake, as well as to NMES, decreased, reflecting the increasing amounts and variety of foods in the diet.
Yogurt made a small contribution to energy and macronutrient intakes during adulthood, with the greatest proportions mostly in the older age group (65 years and over) (energy: 1.7%; fat: 1.3%; saturated fatty acids: 2.1%; NMES: 4%). As intake was higher among women, yogurt made a greater contribution to their micronutrient intakes compared with men, providing >5% of the reference nutrient intakes (RNIs) for phosphorus, iodine, calcium, vitamin B12 and riboflavin.
Simple dietary modelling was carried out to investigate the hypothetical change in mean nutrient intakes among adolescents aged 11–14 and 15–18 years, if they were all to add an extra 125 g pot of low-fat fruit yogurt to their current diet. This showed an increase in average intake, as a percentage of the RNI, for several micronutrients for which there is some evidence of low intakes in this age group, notably calcium in boys and girls (11–18 years) and iodine in girls (11–18 years). Although some benefits for micronutrient intakes were noted, such advice would impact on energy and macronutrient intakes (including NMES), and would need to be given in the context of the wider diet (e.g. as ‘swaps’ for less nutrient-dense foods).
In conclusion, yogurt makes a small but valuable contribution to nutrient intakes in the UK, particularly in young children. Among adolescents, the addition of a low-fat yogurt would help meet recommended intakes for several micronutrients, particularly calcium and iodine, which are of concern in some teenage diets. Advice to replace some types of snacks and desserts, particularly those high in fat and sugars and low in micronutrients, with a pot of yogurt or similar dairy product may improve the nutrient density of their diet.
Could low-calorie sweeteners be contributing to the diabetes epidemic?http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12129Could low-calorie sweeteners be contributing to the diabetes epidemic?R. Miller2015-02-12T05:24:51.979746-05:00doi:10.1111/nbu.12129John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/nbu.12129http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12129Facts Behind the Headlines3335McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods Seventh Summary Edition and updated Composition of Foods Integrated Datasethttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12124McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods Seventh Summary Edition and updated Composition of Foods Integrated DatasetM. Roe, H. Pinchen, S. Church, P. Finglas2015-02-12T05:24:51.73685-05:00doi:10.1111/nbu.12124John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/nbu.12124http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12124News and Views3639Abstract

The Seventh Summary Edition of McCance andWiddowson'sTheComposition ofFoods (MW7) was published in September 2014 and is intended to be a convenient single volume containing the most recent nutrient values for a wide range of almost 1200 foods that are commonly consumed in the UK. In addition to analytical data from recent surveys, all values have been reviewed and either validated as being representative of foods currently consumed or updated. Sources of data are provided for all foods and food names and descriptions are presented in a more standardised format for clarity. The full range of UK food composition data is included in the 2015 version of the Composition of Foods Integrated Dataset and consists of approximately 3300 foods, including all data published in MW7, and updated and/or validated data for foods that have been included in earlier publications in the McCance and Widdowson series.

]]>
The Seventh Summary Edition of McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods (MW7) was published in September 2014 and is intended to be a convenient single volume containing the most recent nutrient values for a wide range of almost 1200 foods that are commonly consumed in the UK. In addition to analytical data from recent surveys, all values have been reviewed and either validated as being representative of foods currently consumed or updated. Sources of data are provided for all foods and food names and descriptions are presented in a more standardised format for clarity. The full range of UK food composition data is included in the 2015 version of the Composition of Foods Integrated Dataset and consists of approximately 3300 foods, including all data published in MW7, and updated and/or validated data for foods that have been included in earlier publications in the McCance and Widdowson series.
The importance of food composition data in recipe analysishttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12125The importance of food composition data in recipe analysisS. M. Church2015-02-12T05:24:53.240697-05:00doi:10.1111/nbu.12125John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/nbu.12125http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12125News and Views4044Abstract

The estimation of the nutrient content of a food from its ingredients, or recipe analysis, can be a cost-effective alternative to chemical analysis for a range of applications. For example, recipe analysis is used in menu planning for institutions and special diets, dietary assessment and food composition databases. More recently, it has become important for assessing whether school meals are meeting guidelines, for calculating ‘calories on the menu’ in food service outlets, for nutritional labelling, and in magazines, cookery books and recipe websites. Robust food composition data, such as the recently published Seventh Summary Edition of McCance andWiddowson's TheComposition ofFoods, are essential for recipe analysis, providing the ‘established and accepted’ source of information required for nutritional labelling. In addition, the new summary edition contains information on weight change, edible conversion factors and vitamin retention values which are invaluable when undertaking recipe calculations. There are, however, many challenges in recipe analysis, including sourcing appropriate nutrient values, converting ingredient quantities from units and household measures to weights, and assigning weight change factors. The new edition is a welcome and invaluable resource for recipe analysis, but the nutrient values and associated data (e.g. weight change and portion sizes) need to be reviewed, updated and expanded on an ongoing basis in order to reflect the changing food supply.

]]>
The estimation of the nutrient content of a food from its ingredients, or recipe analysis, can be a cost-effective alternative to chemical analysis for a range of applications. For example, recipe analysis is used in menu planning for institutions and special diets, dietary assessment and food composition databases. More recently, it has become important for assessing whether school meals are meeting guidelines, for calculating ‘calories on the menu’ in food service outlets, for nutritional labelling, and in magazines, cookery books and recipe websites. Robust food composition data, such as the recently published Seventh Summary Edition of McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, are essential for recipe analysis, providing the ‘established and accepted’ source of information required for nutritional labelling. In addition, the new summary edition contains information on weight change, edible conversion factors and vitamin retention values which are invaluable when undertaking recipe calculations. There are, however, many challenges in recipe analysis, including sourcing appropriate nutrient values, converting ingredient quantities from units and household measures to weights, and assigning weight change factors. The new edition is a welcome and invaluable resource for recipe analysis, but the nutrient values and associated data (e.g. weight change and portion sizes) need to be reviewed, updated and expanded on an ongoing basis in order to reflect the changing food supply.
Sports nutrition in a regulatory limbohttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12126Sports nutrition in a regulatory limboS. Leser2015-02-12T05:24:52.879925-05:00doi:10.1111/nbu.12126John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/nbu.12126http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12126News and Views4553Abstract

The regulatory framework governing sports nutrition products in Europe is changing, with new Regulation 609/2013 on Food for Specific Groups coming into force in July 2016. Currently, sports nutrition products are regulated under the general provisions of Directive 2009/39/EC on Foodstuffs Intended for Particular Nutritional Uses (PARNUTS), the so-called ‘dietetic foods’. An attempt to set out separate provisions for sports nutrition products, such as food composition and labelling criteria, was made by the European Commission in 2004, but at that time a consensus was not agreed and no official activity was developed in this area. In 2011, in light of conflicting rules with more recent legislation, the European Commission agreed to repeal the ‘dietetic foods’ framework, removing the food categories for which no specific provisions exist, such as sports nutrition products. Today, the prospect of regulators bringing in specific legislation for the sports nutrition sector has receded, with Europe's policy makers recognising that sports people are not a vulnerable subgroup of the general population to require additional controls, as reflected in superseding Regulation 609/2013 on Food for Specific Groups. However, as some Member States remain concerned over consumer safety coming from the use of sports nutrition products, the European Commission has been asked to prepare a report addressing the need, if any, for additional specific rules to govern these food products. As we approach what may be a conclusion on a decade-long debate about how to regulate sports nutrition products in Europe, thanks to these regulatory changes, the sector may now face a very different challenge. Initially, the industry was in danger of a legislation that was so restrictive that it could have prevented growth and innovation in the sector. Today, as sports nutrition products have evolved to attend to the needs of the wider active population, the industry is now in danger of a regulatory framework that is so broad that it does not recognise the specific needs of sports people. The Commission Report, due in July 2015, is crucial for settling the legislative framework governing sports nutrition products once and for all, so that concerns from National Authorities and the issues currently experienced by the industry are addressed, and the sector can eventually achieve legal clarity and ensure consumer protection. This article discusses the changing regulatory environment for sports nutrition products in Europe, according to the particular views of the European Specialist Sports Nutrition Alliance (ESSNA), the trade association representing the interests of the sports nutrition industry in Europe.

]]>
The regulatory framework governing sports nutrition products in Europe is changing, with new Regulation 609/2013 on Food for Specific Groups coming into force in July 2016. Currently, sports nutrition products are regulated under the general provisions of Directive 2009/39/EC on Foodstuffs Intended for Particular Nutritional Uses (PARNUTS), the so-called ‘dietetic foods’. An attempt to set out separate provisions for sports nutrition products, such as food composition and labelling criteria, was made by the European Commission in 2004, but at that time a consensus was not agreed and no official activity was developed in this area. In 2011, in light of conflicting rules with more recent legislation, the European Commission agreed to repeal the ‘dietetic foods’ framework, removing the food categories for which no specific provisions exist, such as sports nutrition products. Today, the prospect of regulators bringing in specific legislation for the sports nutrition sector has receded, with Europe's policy makers recognising that sports people are not a vulnerable subgroup of the general population to require additional controls, as reflected in superseding Regulation 609/2013 on Food for Specific Groups. However, as some Member States remain concerned over consumer safety coming from the use of sports nutrition products, the European Commission has been asked to prepare a report addressing the need, if any, for additional specific rules to govern these food products. As we approach what may be a conclusion on a decade-long debate about how to regulate sports nutrition products in Europe, thanks to these regulatory changes, the sector may now face a very different challenge. Initially, the industry was in danger of a legislation that was so restrictive that it could have prevented growth and innovation in the sector. Today, as sports nutrition products have evolved to attend to the needs of the wider active population, the industry is now in danger of a regulatory framework that is so broad that it does not recognise the specific needs of sports people. The Commission Report, due in July 2015, is crucial for settling the legislative framework governing sports nutrition products once and for all, so that concerns from National Authorities and the issues currently experienced by the industry are addressed, and the sector can eventually achieve legal clarity and ensure consumer protection. This article discusses the changing regulatory environment for sports nutrition products in Europe, according to the particular views of the European Specialist Sports Nutrition Alliance (ESSNA), the trade association representing the interests of the sports nutrition industry in Europe.
Stakeholder engagement in food and health innovation research programming – key learnings and policy recommendations from the INPROFOOD projecthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12127Stakeholder engagement in food and health innovation research programming – key learnings and policy recommendations from the INPROFOOD projectR. Gemen, J. Breda, D. Coutinho, L. Fernández Celemín, S. Khan, S. Kugelberg, R. Newton, G. Rowe, M. Strähle, L. Timotijevic, C. Urban, M. Zolotonosa, K. Hadwiger2015-02-12T05:24:54.007517-05:00doi:10.1111/nbu.12127John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/nbu.12127http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12127News from EU Research5465Abstract

Europe recognises the need for technological innovation along with the importance of bridging the gap between science and society. The European Commission has developed a strategy to foster public engagement and a sustained two-way dialogue between science and civil society, and has set up a framework for Responsible Research and Innovation. The EU-funded project INPROFOOD aimed to find new ways to establish dialogue and mutual learning among stakeholders meant to inform subsequent work and future initiatives towards Responsible Research and Innovation. More specifically, INPROFOOD aimed to: (1) increase understanding of the landscapes of food and health innovation research programming; (2) adapt, test and evaluate the application of different stakeholder engagement methods to the area of food and health innovation research programming, which included European Awareness Scenario Workshops, PlayDecide games and an Open Space conference; and (3) to develop an action plan to progress towards Responsible Research and Innovation in this domain. The latter entailed a so-called Mobilisation and Mutual Learning Action Plan, which lays down a concrete framework for inclusive stakeholder involvement at different stages of the research and innovation process, with tangible key actions in five priority areas.

]]>
Europe recognises the need for technological innovation along with the importance of bridging the gap between science and society. The European Commission has developed a strategy to foster public engagement and a sustained two-way dialogue between science and civil society, and has set up a framework for Responsible Research and Innovation. The EU-funded project INPROFOOD aimed to find new ways to establish dialogue and mutual learning among stakeholders meant to inform subsequent work and future initiatives towards Responsible Research and Innovation. More specifically, INPROFOOD aimed to: (1) increase understanding of the landscapes of food and health innovation research programming; (2) adapt, test and evaluate the application of different stakeholder engagement methods to the area of food and health innovation research programming, which included European Awareness Scenario Workshops, PlayDecide games and an Open Space conference; and (3) to develop an action plan to progress towards Responsible Research and Innovation in this domain. The latter entailed a so-called Mobilisation and Mutual Learning Action Plan, which lays down a concrete framework for inclusive stakeholder involvement at different stages of the research and innovation process, with tangible key actions in five priority areas.
The role of health-related claims and health-related symbols in consumer behaviour: Design and conceptual framework of the CLYMBOL project and initial resultshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12128The role of health-related claims and health-related symbols in consumer behaviour: Design and conceptual framework of the CLYMBOL project and initial resultsS. Hieke, N. Kuljanic, J. M. Wills, I. Pravst, A. Kaur, M. M. Raats, H. C. M. Trijp, W. Verbeke, K. G. Grunert2015-02-12T05:24:53.481961-05:00doi:10.1111/nbu.12128John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/nbu.12128http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12128News from EU Research6672Abstract

Health claims and symbols are potential aids to help consumers identify foods that are healthier options. However, little is known as to how health claims and symbols are used by consumers in real-world shopping situations, thus making the science-based formulation of new labelling policies and the evaluation of existing ones difficult. The objective of the European Union-funded project Role of health-relatedCLaimsandsYMBOLsin consumer behaviour (CLYMBOL) is to determine how health-related information provided through claims and symbols, in their context, can affect consumer understanding, purchase and consumption. To do this, a wide range of qualitative and quantitative consumer research methods are being used, including product sampling, sorting studies (i.e. how consumers categorise claims and symbols according to concepts such as familiarity and relevance), cross-country surveys, eye-tracking (i.e. what consumers look at and for how long), laboratory and in-store experiments, structured interviews, as well as analysis of population panel data. EU Member States differ with regard to their history of use and regulation of health claims and symbols prior to the harmonisation of 2006. Findings to date indicate the need for more structured and harmonised research on the effects of health claims and symbols on consumer behaviour, particularly taking into account country-wide differences and individual characteristics such as motivation and ability to process health-related information. Based on the studies within CLYMBOL, implications and recommendations for stakeholders such as policymakers will be provided.

]]>
Health claims and symbols are potential aids to help consumers identify foods that are healthier options. However, little is known as to how health claims and symbols are used by consumers in real-world shopping situations, thus making the science-based formulation of new labelling policies and the evaluation of existing ones difficult. The objective of the European Union-funded project Role of health-related CLaims and sYMBOLs in consumer behaviour (CLYMBOL) is to determine how health-related information provided through claims and symbols, in their context, can affect consumer understanding, purchase and consumption. To do this, a wide range of qualitative and quantitative consumer research methods are being used, including product sampling, sorting studies (i.e. how consumers categorise claims and symbols according to concepts such as familiarity and relevance), cross-country surveys, eye-tracking (i.e. what consumers look at and for how long), laboratory and in-store experiments, structured interviews, as well as analysis of population panel data. EU Member States differ with regard to their history of use and regulation of health claims and symbols prior to the harmonisation of 2006. Findings to date indicate the need for more structured and harmonised research on the effects of health claims and symbols on consumer behaviour, particularly taking into account country-wide differences and individual characteristics such as motivation and ability to process health-related information. Based on the studies within CLYMBOL, implications and recommendations for stakeholders such as policymakers will be provided.
BNF Noticeshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12132BNF Notices2015-02-12T05:24:52.392562-05:00doi:10.1111/nbu.12132John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/nbu.12132http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12132BNF Notices7373Conference Diaryhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12133Conference Diary2015-02-12T05:24:52.168843-05:00doi:10.1111/nbu.12133John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/nbu.12133http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12133Conference Diary7475Erratumhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12123Erratum2015-02-12T05:24:52.820486-05:00doi:10.1111/nbu.12123John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/nbu.12123http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fnbu.12123Erratum7676